Letter From the Editors

The second round of peace talks in Istanbul wrapped up in just over an hour, and sources along the political spectrum seem to agree that the two sides were only simulating political dialogue to please Donald Trump. Fyodor Lukyanov writes: “[A]n invisible presence at the negotiating table is Donald Trump, relations with whom are important to both sides. . . . Trump wants to see a negotiating process. So let’s show him one: Both Moscow and Kiev are willing to paint that picture.”

Mikhail Shevchuk expresses a similar view: “The talks are only continuing because US President Donald Trump is insisting on it – and neither Russia nor Ukraine wants him to exit the process.” However, Shevchuk continues, even if Trump pushed Putin and Zelensky into signing some agreement, there would be no motivation for Russia to abide by it. Paradoxically, even those who oppose the war (and we assume Shevchuk includes himself here) don’t welcome the current peace talks, because “it has become harder to understand why peace is needed and should be pursued. Well, aside from the argument that the loss of life is a tragedy.” Yes, there is that.

But on the political level, Shevchuk asserts, the West has given Russia no incentive to end the war. “Throughout the conflict, no Western leader has ever said that all the sanctions and all the closed borders . . . will be lifted once a peace treaty is signed.” Shevchuk quotes a March 2025 statement from the European Commission: “The end of the Russian [unprovoked and] unjustified aggression in Ukraine and unconditional withdrawal of all Russian military forces from the entire territory of Ukraine would be one of the main preconditions to amend or lift sanctions” (emphasis added).

Categorical as this pronouncement may sound, foreign affairs analyst Anna Batta argues that the West’s terms of negotiation have loosened up since the Russia-Ukraine conflict broke out more than 10 years ago. “In the Normandy negotiations, there was no talk of recognizing Russian control over any Ukrainian territory. But recent US efforts to negotiate peace have included a ‘de jure’ US recognition of Russian control in the Crimea, plus ‘de facto recognition’ of Russia’s occupation of nearly all of Ukraine’s Lugansk Province and the occupied portions of its Donetsk, Kherson and Zaporozhye Provinces.” Batta continues: “Another major difference between the negotiation process then and now is who is mediating.” Instead of Moscow officials facing off against Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron, whom they never considered neutral mediators, now “it is the US taking the lead, which suits Putin down to the ground.”

But where does that leave ordinary Russians? Therein lies the greatest disappointment in Shevchuk’s eyes: “Three years ago, many hoped that Europe would fight Putin for Russia. That didn’t happen. There was no battle.” And since today’s mediators make no distinction between the Russian leader and his people, “in this sense, Putin has won.”

The Polish presidential election may support that conclusion – or, at least, that European solidarity has taken a step backward – with conservative Karol Nawrocki edging out Warsaw Mayor Rafal Trzaskowski in the runoff. Kommersant reports: “In many ways, the current election was seen less as a battle of individual personalities than as a vote of confidence for the coalition of pro-European Prime Minister Donald Tusk,” a staunch supporter of Ukraine. Nawrocki, on the other hand, opposes Ukraine’s admission to the EU and NATO, citing Kiev’s lack of apology for the Volyn massacres of 1943-1945, in which over 100,000 Poles died.

While billed as a Euroskeptic, Nawrocki has no great love for his other eastern neighbor, either. He’s been on Russia’s wanted list since February 2024 for suspected involvement in demolishing Polish monuments to Soviet warriors. Will this historian-turned-politician disrupt the Kremlin’s narrative of the glorious past?